I'd really like to see the results from RF 9 Testing, rather than RF 31 to see how "Robust" the signal actually is.

mrvideo

11-19-2018 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BiggAW
(Post 57130386)

I'd rather have a slightly flatter image that still has really good detail and color, but of course I'd still rather have a higher bitrate with more depth and detail and color. Hopefully ATSC 3.0 will deliver that with HEVC encoding.

But, you can count on the stations adding a lot more crap, resulting in lots of bit-starved videos. They can't leave well enough alone.

BiggAW

11-19-2018 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrvideo
(Post 57133052)

But, you can count on the stations adding a lot more crap, resulting in lots of bit-starved videos. They can't leave well enough alone.

That is, unfortunately, a possibility, and I think they've pretty much hit the end of the line for encoder improvements with MPEG-2. There may be a bit of room left for improvement on H.264, and then it's all up to HEVC.

DrDon

11-20-2018 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrvideo
(Post 57133052)

But, you can count on the stations adding a lot more crap, resulting in lots of bit-starved videos. They can't leave well enough alone.

They will once advertisers complain. Which, I guarantee, is what motivates stations to buy better encoders to begin with. I've made bank from this theory. All it takes is one massive local account asking why their commercials look better on the competition.

Ratman

11-20-2018 07:11 AM

OTOH...
All one needs is an antenna and a TV. Virtually free.

No subscriptions, no STB(s)/DVR to lease and more channels compared to the "old days" where my 1st 30+ years were watching ~7 fuzzy/ghosty channels. ;)
And 13 of those years in B&W. :eek:

BiggAW

11-20-2018 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDon
(Post 57135264)

They will once advertisers complain. Which, I guarantee, is what motivates stations to buy better encoders to begin with. I've made bank from this theory. All it takes is one massive local account asking why their commercials look better on the competition.

Up to a point. Comcast has found that most people are too stupid/oblivious to notice that 3.8mbps 720p MPEG-4 looks like blurry crap. At least they haven't made my local NBC look anywhere close to that bad yet.

Ratman

11-20-2018 09:33 AM

Comcast is not stupid/oblivious though. And they don't care. They get a monthly income from subscribers no matter whether the programming or commercials "look good" or not.
Subscribers look for convenience and quantity.. not quality. And yeah... IMHO, most Average Joes wouldn't know the difference with HD feeds no matter how they get programming. Heck! I'd bet there are more than a handful of satellite, cable, FiOS subs that have their STB's set to 480i and use the TV's "stretch mode". :D

Bismarck440

11-20-2018 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ratman
(Post 57135522)

OTOH...
All one needs is an antenna and a TV. Virtually free.

No subscriptions, no STB(s)/DVR to lease and more channels compared to the "old days" where my 1st 30+ years were watching ~7 fuzzy/ghosty channels. ;)
And 13 of those years in B&W. :eek:

Ditto...

I never paid for TV until my recent Roku which I indirectly pay for it by the ISP service.... & yes, years with only 6-7 channels supplemented with VCR movie rentals, that was fine.

Installers are hip to this & now want your first born to install roof antenna.

Tschmidt

11-20-2018 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bismarck440
(Post 57136536)

Installers are hip to this & now want your first born to install roof antenna.

I think the lack of local installers, regardless of price, is a significant hindrance for more folks switching to OTA. Not everyone is interested in wading through all the technobable plus the FCC Repack and adoption of ATSC 3.0 over the next couple of years just adds more public confusion.

That is in addition to the general lack of knowledge that OTA still exists. How many times in this forum has someone mentioned folks are not even aware that OTA is an option.

It will be an interesting couple of years. Once the smoke settles and ATSC 3.0 tuners are common we need to upgrade our stuff, probably with a SilconDust LAN based system.

Bismarck440

11-20-2018 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tschmidt
(Post 57136626)

That is in addition to the general lack of knowledge that OTA still exists. How many times in this forum has someone mentioned folks are not even aware that OTA is an option.

I brought this up in other threads, but I currently live in a Cluster Homes/Condo Subdivision, they have let the Common Antennas deteriorate & are removing them on re-roofing, & wiring is now considered a utility owned by the said present Cable Company.

When I brought this up to them @ a HOA Meeting, they laughed at me that I only 'thought' I was getting free TV, & I should call the Cable provider for TV like everyone else... because "OTA TV simply does not exist anymore". Around the June 2009 the Provider at that time sent out notices that if one wanted TV after June of 2009 transition, one would have to call them or another Pay TV provider to continue receiving TV.

As you see, they are much like sheep or lemmings. :)

My Antenna continued to work until Memorial Day weekend '14 when an electrical problem in the common lined took out the distribution Amp, they refused to repair this under the guise mentioned above, I have had to use an attic antenna in the time being.

Low VHF seems to become an option again in many markets, yet the Low VHF has been removed on many of the available antennas.

Ratman

11-20-2018 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bismarck440
(Post 57136906)

… I currently live in a Cluster Homes/Condo Subdivision, they have let the Common Antennas deteriorate & are removing them on re-roofing,

Because no one complained for the past 20 years.

Quote:

& wiring is now considered a utility owned by the said present Cable Company.

That's debatable. IMO, it depends on support contracts and whether they utilized existing cabling or ran new. Again... contracts.

Quote:

When I brought this up to them @ a HOA Meeting, they laughed at me that I only 'thought' I was getting free TV, & I should call the Cable provider for TV like everyone else... because "OTA TV simply does not exist anymore".

They don't want "no stinking ugly antennas!"

Bismarck440

11-20-2018 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ratman
(Post 57137510)

Because no one complained for the past 20 years.

That's debatable. IMO, it depends on support contracts and whether they utilized existing cabling or ran new. Again... contracts.

They don't want "no stinking ugly antennas!"

Actually I did last complain in 2007 when all the UHF went out, Management company first balked & told me to call my "provider", then called their Antenna contractor as their mistake... again in '14 when they refused to look into it... later I found was an electrical line that took out several streetlamps which to this day are still dark.

The system worked beautifully. :) The internal cabling was installed to the original roof antennas when the units were built from the late 70's to early 90's, cable first came into the area in '82. The Cable company modified per their use, though the former owners used the antenna also so the lines in my place were not disrupted, I had that spelled out on the terms of sale agreement upon buying the place.

The new rule is no antennas or dishes roof mounted as it may degrade the integrity of the roof, I'm sure after a few years I'll start seeing dishes again on the units with newer roofs just out of pure ignorance.

sneals2000

11-22-2018 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bismarck440
(Post 57136536)

Installers are hip to this & now want your first born to install roof antenna.

In the UK a basic Freesat 45cm 28.2E single-dish / quad-LNB (with two feeders) install will cost around the same as a basic Freeview UHF rooftop antenna install - including the dish+LNB or antenna and cable (though the dual-dish feed dish requires twice the cable). They take roughly the same amount of time to install, and require roughly the same mounting.

TampBayOTA

11-22-2018 01:52 PM

Whats FMR and AMR???

Quote:

Originally Posted by BiggAW
(Post 57022554)

I would hope that FM and AM don't go anywhere... they use a tiny amount of spectrum, and they are embedded in a lot more devices, namely cars. FM and AM radio stations will have to consolidate, but they still have a strong following in both rural and urban markets, and as much as people are streaming more, there are still vast swaths of the US that have patchy or unreliable mobile data service.

Whats AMR and FMR??? ;) ;)

I have not listened to them in decades for more than a few minuscule attempts to see what is tehre...

The white noise from the vacant channels is more appealing than the signal on the stations! You want to talk about noise!

Sirrius is ONE THING I pay for, and begrudgingly gladly... my one nit with them is not having a true $10 pick 5 channels plan out of they 100's... So I pay a little more to get the choices I want, but still there is excess noise on there... I am not paying for traffic, news, loudmouth vulgar talkers etc.. I was not interested when they were are on part 73, I am not interested now.

5,6,7,8,73,

And if you ever wanted to see err hear what a mess this is ... noise...ads.ads..ads..ads..noise..ads.ads..ads...a ds..ads..noise...

These things can go the way of the buggy whip for all I care...

Quote:

Originally Posted by BiggAW
(Post 57022554)

I have a feeling that eventually the TV networks will disappear from the air and be apps or pay tv channels, but I think OTA will be around for a long time with syndicated content or diginet type of stuff. There's always a market for that

I think eventually the US will catch up to the UK and the idiot affiliates will finally go away... IPTV may eventually force this, which would be a good thing!

It should have happened awhile back, it should happen in the 3.0 transition, it hasn't and won't now... for now... For 3.0 and OTA to be successful and viable long term, the affiliates need to go! Point an antenna at 182 and be done... Get 100's of channels! :) Everyone wins... yes even Sinclair, Weigel, TENGA, Nexstar etc... not in the way they are now... but hey Sinclair is going to get just about every station whether they own it or not over the repack from the equipment they need for this... sinister aint it! :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BiggAW
(Post 57022554)

, plus local news and weather.

No market or use for that... don't watch, read or listen to it, ok, I do listen to the WX on NWR even it is that stupid robot... the text products are easier to read...

.TONIGHT...Mostly cloudy in the evening then becoming partly
cloudy. Lows in the upper 50s. North winds 5 to 10 mph.
.FRIDAY...Partly cloudy. Highs in the upper 70s. Northeast winds
5 to 10 mph.
.FRIDAY NIGHT...Partly cloudy in the evening then becoming mostly
cloudy. Lows in the lower 60s. East winds around 5 mph
shifting to the southwest after midnight.
.SATURDAY...Mostly cloudy in the morning then becoming partly
sunny. A slight chance of showers. Highs around 80. Southwest
winds 5 to 10 mph. Chance of rain 20 percent.
.SATURDAY NIGHT...Partly cloudy. Lows in the lower 60s. Southwest
winds around 5 mph.
.SUNDAY...Partly cloudy with a slight chance of showers. Highs in
the lower 80s. Chance of rain 20 percent.
.SUNDAY NIGHT...Partly cloudy. Lows in the mid 60s.
.MONDAY...Partly sunny with a chance of showers. Highs in the
lower 80s. Chance of rain 40 percent.
.MONDAY NIGHT...Partly cloudy. Lows in the mid 50s.
.TUESDAY...Partly sunny in the morning, then mostly cloudy with a
slight chance of showers in the afternoon. Cooler. Highs in the
lower 70s. Chance of rain 20 percent.
.TUESDAY NIGHT...Mostly cloudy with a chance of showers. Lows
around 50. Chance of rain 50 percent.
.WEDNESDAY...Mostly cloudy with a slight chance of showers in the
morning, then partly cloudy in the afternoon. Highs in the upper
60s. Chance of rain 20 percent.
.WEDNESDAY NIGHT AND THURSDAY...Partly cloudy with a chance of
showers. Lows in the upper 40s. Highs in the mid 70s. Chance of
rain 40 percent.

$$

Bismarck440

11-23-2018 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sneals2000
(Post 57146382)

In the UK a basic Freesat 45cm 28.2E single-dish / quad-LNB (with two feeders) install will cost around the same as a basic Freeview UHF rooftop antenna install - including the dish+LNB or antenna and cable (though the dual-dish feed dish requires twice the cable). They take roughly the same amount of time to install, and require roughly the same mounting.

The installers have adjusted their prices to about to what you would pay for a years worth of ever increasing cable/pay TV, unless there is intensive wiring to be done or a high pitched roofline, its relatively a simple task.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TampBayOTA
(Post 57148236)

Whats AMR and FMR??? ;) ;)

I have not listened to them in decades for more than a few minuscule attempts to see what is tehre...

The white noise from the vacant channels is more appealing than the signal on the stations! You want to talk about noise!

Sirrius is ONE THING I pay for, and begrudgingly gladly... my one nit with them is not having a true $10 pick 5 channels plan out of they 100's...

I still do listen to FM (& sometimes AM), in my vehicle, not all of us want to start paying for what we were getting for free, nor do I want to pay for additional equipment (not to mention the PITA if installing) in my aging vehicles to subscribe to such services.

Then again, I also miss my Weather Sub on OTA.

Sad you are probably correct as time goes on, just like Cable, future generations will be programmed to pay services as they will not know any other way.:(

TampBayOTA

11-23-2018 04:58 AM

There is nothing to listen too!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bismarck440
(Post 57149708)

The installers have adjusted their prices to about to what you would pay for a years worth of ever increasing cable/pay TV, unless there is intensive wiring to be done or a high pitched roofline, its relatively a simple task.

The simple fact on this is that a lot, a lot of knowledge on things like puttng up a TV antenna, that is really simple stuff has been lost over the years of the CATV taking hold as the primary transport method...

Add in the stupidity of the anti antenna naziHOA's, which OTARD smakcks down, and hopefully now that nelson is gone bills which would do the same for Part 97 Amateur Radio will get passed and antennas will start to flourish again...

OTA if they do things right COULD eat up CATV and DBS! All they need to is get rid of their outdated affiliates and move into the 2000's! Unlikley to happen in the 3.0 transition as it should. They really could give CATV a run for it, if they did.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bismarck440
(Post 57149708)

I still do listen to FM (& sometimes AM), in my vehicle, not all of us want to start paying for what we were getting for free, nor do I want to pay for additional equipment (not to mention the PITA if installing) in my aging vehicles to subscribe to such services.

After moving to the TPA region, and finding no suitable FMR stations in the region, ie: oldies 50-60-selected forward... it was just mostly noise, noise nosise, and excessive ads.. and still is...

I dislike the idea of paying for this, but compared to FMR, its priceless! I get real music, no ads, and no mostly no jabbering.. they do tend to try to model 5 and 6 more akin to the old 50-70's style of radio, with some of this... which is OK... I am a station hopper, always have, always will... 90% of music even in the genres I accept, is not palatable to me... I am snob in many areas, music is one.... So I jump 5,67,8, 5,6,7,8 till I get a song I like.. I can put 5-6 on and let it play when needed.... couldn't do that on FMR or AMR....

As for adding a radio.. I added a Sirrius via one of those little blobs they offered when they started. easy peasy.. 1.2.3.... had that for years... and then got a vehicle with it in the radio... Not that big a deal really. Takes about 5 minutes if that....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bismarck440
(Post 57149708)

Then again, I also miss my Weather Sub on OTA.

This should be done in each area.. station with a feed of WSR88, and a ticker of the NOAA WX Wire much like the OLD OLD WX C chryon stuff along with a NWR audio 24//7/365....

But this gets back to our outdated delivery model holding back using ATSC 1 and even more so 3.0 or digital TV to start from its abilities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bismarck440
(Post 57149708)

Sad you are probably correct as time goes on, just like Cable, future generations will be programmed to pay services as they will not know any other way.:(

I choose to pay for Sirrius, on the lowest plan I can get for the channels I want.. Their ala carte choice plan doesn't offer anything I would listen to or I would get that...Still at least about 20-30 channels I will never listen to. I honestly don't know how they keeo those FMR and AMR's on the air! OK, I do, the excessive ad loads... but who do they think is listening!?????????

If there was an acceptable oldies station 5-6-7 I would think about it... but there is none in the whole state, and I don't think that even the ones I listened to in a previous area even exist in that format now....

Around me the one local broadcaster that owns about 3 AMR and 4-5 FMR basically just takes the AMR and uses the FMR to rebroadcast the AMR's on them. In the past they were independently programmed.... Theirs a little variance for some things like HS football based on the location of the station. This is a fairly recent occurrence.

I think those operating FMR & AMR should be really worried...

BiggAW

11-23-2018 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ratman
(Post 57136304)

Comcast is not stupid/oblivious though. And they don't care. They get a monthly income from subscribers no matter whether the programming or commercials "look good" or not.
Subscribers look for convenience and quantity.. not quality. And yeah... IMHO, most Average Joes wouldn't know the difference with HD feeds no matter how they get programming. Heck! I'd bet there are more than a handful of satellite, cable, FiOS subs that have their STB's set to 480i and use the TV's "stretch mode". :D

True. The fact of the matter is that most people are completely oblivious to what's right in front of their face. Unfortunately, yes, that was/is quite common with people feeding their HDTVs the RF out of an SD cablebox. I think it's less common now simply because the newer boxes usually push you towards HDMI, as they should.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bismarck440
(Post 57136906)

When I brought this up to them @ a HOA Meeting, they laughed at me that I only 'thought' I was getting free TV, & I should call the Cable provider for TV like everyone else... because "OTA TV simply does not exist anymore". Around the June 2009 the Provider at that time sent out notices that if one wanted TV after June of 2009 transition, one would have to call them or another Pay TV provider to continue receiving TV.

WOW! Some people are incredibly stupid!

Quote:

Originally Posted by TampBayOTA
(Post 57150104)

OTA if they do things right COULD eat up CATV and DBS! All they need to is get rid of their outdated affiliates and move into the 2000's! Unlikley to happen in the 3.0 transition as it should. They really could give CATV a run for it, if they did.....

And WHY would they want to do that? Current the cable companies do all the hard work of broadening the affiliates' reach by running thousands of miles of cable all over the place AND pay the affiliates. The networks and affiliates are double dipping.

TampBayOTA

11-23-2018 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BiggAW
(Post 57152652)

And WHY would they want to do that? Current the cable companies do all the hard work of broadening the affiliates' reach by running thousands of miles of cable all over the place AND pay the affiliates. The networks and affiliates are double dipping.

[/quote]

Because the cost of CATV & DBS keeps going up, partially because of this stupid retrans consent fee BS.. The stations are licensed to USE PUBLIC AIRWAVES... That gravy train extortion is going to dry up! Especially if 3.0 really fixes the mss the US has made at least the technical mess...

Just look at the threads in the SFO or CLE threads... and all the grief in those areas... it DOES NOT NEED TO BE THIS COMPLICATED in 2018, or 2009! It definitely doesn't need to be this mess in 2021 after the repack....

We've fubar'd things up in TVLand for nearly 10 years, now is the time to clean up the mess!

Bismarck440

11-24-2018 03:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TampBayOTA
(Post 57150104)

The simple fact on this is that a lot, a lot of knowledge on things like putting up a TV antenna, that is really simple stuff has been lost over the years of the CATV taking hold as the primary transport method...

The Floppy/Key TV antennas would likely work great under ideal conditions & within 5-10 miles of the transmitter, yet most of us don't fall in that category. I get 3 stations (NBC, ABC, UNI) + their subs with a floppy wall mount. Still missing FOX, CBS, PBS & CW + a couple of indies.

Misleading advertising that can frustrate the average person. ....no such thing as a 150 mile antenna, I'm 28 mi from my towers, using a 120 mi attic mount & still have difficulty with a couple of the stations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TampBayOTA
(Post 57150104)

This should be done in each area.. station with a feed of WSR88, and a ticker of the NOAA WX Wire much like the OLD OLD WX C chryon stuff along with a NWR audio 24//7/365....

But this gets back to our outdated delivery model holding back using ATSC 1 and even more so 3.0 or digital TV to start from its abilities.

WCPO on Cincinnati was using NOAA + a graphic radar in '11, not sure what they would use now but sufficient. Everyone else is expected to have a Smart Phone, at least what I was told when I complained to my Local for removing the WX sub.

Because the cost of CATV & DBS keeps going up, partially because of this stupid retrans consent fee BS.. The stations are licensed to USE PUBLIC AIRWAVES... That gravy train extortion is going to dry up!

The economics of OTA TV don't work out if cable can carry them for free and they have competitors that can accept payment from cable.

Consider this: ESPN gets something like $7/subscriber per month. Using ballpark statistics I remember from a few years ago, at 100 million subscribers, that's $700 million per month, or $8.4 billion per year they can put in to buy up sports rights. I cite sports rights because that's what people are most likely to watch live and least likely to skip commercials in, and commercials are what would make an OTA broadcaster money.

Now, if ESPN has $8.4 billion per year beyond ad revenue to shell out for sports rights, and your favorite OTA channel has $0 beyond ad revenue, who will be able to outbid the other for these rights? Even networks like AMC get $1/month or so; doing the same calculation, if someone is producing a new, high-quality show, will AMC with $1.2 billion/year from retrans be in the better position to buy shows, or will your favorite OTA channel with $0?

That's the problem that retrans for OTA stations is trying to fix. If everyone watched OTA and nobody paid for cable, there would be no extra pool of dollars to drive up the cost of programming. If everyone is watching on cable and satellite, by contrast, how can a small group of stations compete if they cannot receive comparable revenue streams as their numerous competitors to pay for programming? If cable/satellite percentages dropped enough, advertisers would demand that the programming appeared where viewers were (OTA) and the programming price would fall, making it affordable to OTA broadcasters without retrans dollars to spend. As long as that's not the case, though, you have to do something or OTA programming will become cheaper and lower in quality until it disappears.

- Trip

BiggAW

11-24-2018 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TampBayOTA
(Post 57153454)

Because the cost of CATV & DBS keeps going up, partially because of this stupid retrans consent fee BS.. The stations are licensed to USE PUBLIC AIRWAVES... That gravy train extortion is going to dry up! Especially if 3.0 really fixes the mss the US has made at least the technical mess...

Just look at the threads in the SFO or CLE threads... and all the grief in those areas... it DOES NOT NEED TO BE THIS COMPLICATED in 2018, or 2009! It definitely doesn't need to be this mess in 2021 after the repack....

We've fubar'd things up in TVLand for nearly 10 years, now is the time to clean up the mess!

I'm not aware of the particular SFO or CLE situations, but there are places weirdly between markets or that don't qualify for any market on satellite, etc. It's a totally screwed up system, as DBS still has a different set of rules than cable, although with re-transmission costs what they are, I wonder if SV locals are going to disappear, or are SV locals negotiated separately from where those channels are in-market?

I see what you're saying, at some point, if the broadcast industry doesn't push OTA, people just cut the cord and don't watch broadcast TV at all. That's definitely a concern, although I'd guess they are betting on vMVPDs, since they still get to double-dip. I'd wonder when they get near the tipping point that they have to start embracing and promoting OTA, or if they wait until it's too late, and people have already moved on to other things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bismarck440
(Post 57154712)

The Floppy/Key TV antennas would likely work great under ideal conditions & within 5-10 miles of the transmitter, yet most of us don't fall in that category.

Probably not on this forum, but there are huge numbers of people living in cities that are within 5-10 miles of the transmitters and don't need a whole lot to get good OTA reception.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trip in VA
(Post 57154876)

The economics of OTA TV don't work out if cable can carry them for free and they have competitors that can accept payment from cable.

That's a very interesting argument that I can't immediately dismiss. You're basically looking at the market as having a finite or semi-finite amount of good content that various content sources are bidding up to ridiculous levels, all fueled by cable TV.

Quote:

That's the problem that retrans for OTA stations is trying to fix. If everyone watched OTA and nobody paid for cable, there would be no extra pool of dollars to drive up the cost of programming. If everyone is watching on cable and satellite, by contrast, how can a small group of stations compete if they cannot receive comparable revenue streams as their numerous competitors to pay for programming? If cable/satellite percentages dropped enough, advertisers would demand that the programming appeared where viewers were (OTA) and the programming price would fall, making it affordable to OTA broadcasters without retrans dollars to spend. As long as that's not the case, though, you have to do something or OTA programming will become cheaper and lower in quality until it disappears.

I think you eventually get to some tipping point though, where OTA has so many more viewers in total (it may still be a majority on cable, but a large minority only with OTA) that OTA is able to concentrate more viewers and make more raw CPM off of the ads, keeping them competitive with cable, but we may not have reached that point yet. I think the diginets prove that it doesn't have to disappear, quite to the contrary, but reinforces the idea that the quality could do down to the lowest possible level and just grind out advertising revenue.

EDIT: Fix quotes

sneals2000

11-24-2018 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HDTV1080P24
(Post 36121602)

Over the many decades the physical bandwidth for over the air broadcast television keeps shrinking as the FCC keeps auctioning off the spectrum. In the future perhaps one day the entire over the air broadcast television spectrum might be completely auctioned off. The new ATSC 3.0 system will increase the virtual bandwidth but not the physical bandwidth. ATSC 3.0 will have better audio quality, Ultra HD resolution support, and HDR. However, consumers and broadcasters keep losing the physical bandwidth for free over the air broadcast television

Perhaps one day the FCC might decide to auction off some of the FM and AM radio physical bandwidth and use HD Radio to increase the virtual bandwidth.

QUOTE

“The amount of spectrum devoted to TV broadcasters is shrinking—from a peak of 486 MHz before 1983 to 294 MHz today. The incentive auction could easily reduce that to 210 MHz or less. How will broadcasters be able to deliver the same variety of programs and offer new services over the air with less spectrum? I don’t see any option but to make the move to ATSC 3.0, as difficult as that may be.”

To comment on the original post - yes, RF spectrum for OTA TV is diminishing. However broadcast quality and efficiency has hugely improved since the 30s and 40s when OTA TV started to be developed.

In the analogue 90s in the UK we had 5 terrestrial networks - BBC One, BBC Two, ITV, Channel Four and Channel Five (though C5 was only partially available to avoid interferences with other European countries) These services were all analogue PAL 575i50 with 728kbps NICAM 32k/14-10bit digital stereo audio. Each service took up an 8MHz RF channel.

Now, after digital switchover, we have BBC One HD, BBC Two HD, ITV HD, C4 HD and C5 HD. All of them are H.264/AVC compressed in 1080i25 HD, with most channels carrying 5.1 AAC audio for some content (ITV is 2.0 only) All these 5 services are now carried in just one 8MHz RF channel using a 40.25Mbs DVB-T2 mux (32k carriers at 256QAM). That means we've gone from 5 PAL composite services needing 40MHz to 5 HD 1080i services needing just 8MHz, reducing our bandwidth requirements for these services by 80%. This could be improved yet further if we, like German has, switched to HEVC/H265 rather than AVC/H264)

In areas where there are no regional variations to worry about (not the case in the US - but often the case in many European countries where there are nationwide channels with no regional variations) you can also use single-frequency networks where all transmitters send the same content on the same frequency, reducing the requirement for more bandwidth to avoid interference issues between transmitters.

In the UK we are migrating two DVB-T2 muxes to SFNs on C55 and C56 nationwide.

Bismarck440

11-24-2018 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BiggAW
(Post 57155420)

I'm not aware of the particular SFO or CLE situations, but there are places weirdly between markets or that don't qualify for any market on satellite, etc. It's a totally screwed up system, as DBS still has a different set of rules than cable, although with re-transmission costs what they are, I wonder if SV locals are going to disappear, or are SV locals negotiated separately from where those channels are in-market?

Probably not on this forum, but there are huge numbers of people living in cities that are within 5-10 miles of the transmitters and don't need a whole lot to get good OTA reception.

Those people that live close to the transmitters also are the ones that... "But I have to have (insert favorite cable channel / Cable reality show here)", or simply were weaned on cable (saw that coming), & are ignorant of what is available. I grew up on OTA & knew nothing different.

CLE situation, the terrain/distance, may block the signal to certain areas, the agreement to protect Canadian stations, the CLE area is very Akroncentric & favors the Western & southern DMA, adjacent markets have lower powered stations not sufficiently covering the outer fringes of the CLE DMA market (which are closer to the neighboring market) that are missed.

Trip in VA

11-24-2018 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BiggAW
(Post 57155420)

That's a very interesting argument that I can't immediately dismiss. You're basically looking at the market as having a finite or semi-finite amount of good content that various content sources are bidding up to ridiculous levels, all fueled by cable TV.

Isn't it, though? Just about any sitcom, documentary, or drama can be either bought/rented/borrowed from the library/streamed (all without advertising) at this point, with a few exceptions a lot of the other stuff like court shows and talk shows are largely filler that people wouldn't otherwise seek out (correct me if I'm wrong), and that leaves news and sports. News is expensive and many markets are currently losing news departments to consolidation, while sports fans want to watch their specific teams, and right now the rights cost a lot of money. To the extent there is "must see" content outside of those categories that people don't want to wait to see on DVD or streaming, the market will only support so much of it, and right now most of that is on cable or streaming services. That content is either licensed adaptations of books/comics/old TV shows/etc., comes from established names who themselves will be able to negotiate for the best possible deal among all players, or you might get lucky and hire someone new and strike gold, but that requires the kind of risk that big companies tend to shy away from. (All the more reason to dislike consolidation, if you ask me.) And, of course, the moment that new person becomes famous, they too will follow the money, so if you don't lock them into a long contract, you may just be subsidizing the competition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BiggAW
(Post 57155420)

I think you eventually get to some tipping point though, where OTA has so many more viewers in total (it may still be a majority on cable, but a large minority only with OTA) that OTA is able to concentrate more viewers and make more raw CPM off of the ads, keeping them competitive with cable, but we may not have reached that point yet. I think the diginets prove that it doesn't have to disappear, quite to the contrary, but reinforces the idea that the quality could do down to the lowest possible level and just grind out advertising revenue.

I think it really depends. If people are deciding that they simply cannot afford to pay for sports and the advertisers start to pull back, then I think OTA has an opening. You can have 75% on OTA but if the remaining 25% are the people who the sports advertisers want to reach, for example, then they have no incentive to give up the revenue stream.

- Trip

BiggAW

11-24-2018 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bismarck440
(Post 57156826)

CLE situation, the terrain/distance, may block the signal to certain areas, the agreement to protect Canadian stations, the CLE area is very Akroncentric & favors the Western & southern DMA, adjacent markets have lower powered stations not sufficiently covering the outer fringes of the CLE DMA market (which are closer to the neighboring market) that are missed.

Interesting. A lot of markets have areas that have difficult reception, like parts of Boston and Hartford-New Haven.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trip in VA
(Post 57157088)

Isn't it, though? Just about any sitcom, documentary, or drama can be either bought/rented/borrowed from the library/streamed (all without advertising) at this point, with a few exceptions a lot of the other stuff like court shows and talk shows are largely filler that people wouldn't otherwise seek out (correct me if I'm wrong), and that leaves news and sports. News is expensive and many markets are currently losing news departments to consolidation, while sports fans want to watch their specific teams, and right now the rights cost a lot of money.

That's the thing. Sports cost an absolute FORTUNE, and ESPN has been driving up the costs of sports in the process of making their channels a must-have for anyone who watches basically any sport.

Quote:

I think it really depends. If people are deciding that they simply cannot afford to pay for sports and the advertisers start to pull back, then I think OTA has an opening. You can have 75% on OTA but if the remaining 25% are the people who the sports advertisers want to reach, for example, then they have no incentive to give up the revenue stream.

If anything, I would think that the CPM would creep up a tiny bit on cable if more people cut the cord, as then you have a higher concentration of sports fans who are willing to drop a lot of dough for something they want who are fanatical about the sport watching. However, at some point, there just aren't enough viewers paying retrans fees or bringing in advertising revenue. If OTA is getting way larger audiences, then that might shift the economics towards OTA. I think there are advertisers for both, OTA has a uniquely wide range of people it reaches, which is great for certain type of general interest brands that want to build a brand that's widely visible. At some point, however, advertisers are paying for the size of the audience, and even if the CPM is slightly lower on OTA, the sheer size of the audience will win out in terms of ad and sponsorship revenue.

TampBayOTA

11-25-2018 09:23 AM

So whats the point of 3.0?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trip in VA
(Post 57154876)

The economics of OTA TV don't work out if cable can carry them for free and they have competitors that can accept payment from cable.

Nope. No sale.

Things worked quite well well into the CATV era with competition from USA, and various other networks with content of their own....

Nope.....

And again the stations are using PUBLIC AIRWAVES.. they send their signal out with the IDEA that PEOPLE RECEIVE IT FOR FREE! DUH! They lace their signal with annoying ads interpsersed with the mostly vulgar vile PC programming, slander...err.. news... ..

If they don't want some one to receiver it then they should encrypt it.. we've been there done that with the SASVI UHF movie stuff in the past.. and I am no so sure that a full time ABC encrypted station would be in the public good criteria... which as I recall is what got those UHF stations of the past in a bind...

I send out my signals for various things, PD, FD, EMS... 96% of it can be received 100% as its in the clear, intentionally..There are groups which are encrypted which I disagree with.... there are some that I agree with in certain circumstances... the point of this is encrypt if you don't want it received! Look at the C/Ku band stuff... all the good stuff is encrypted... you might catch some wild feeds and SNG stuff if you are persistent in the clear....

Oh, you object to commicast etc. from receiving the signal and distributing it... too bad! So they paid and finagled this retrans crap... it started before with some of the syndex BS when station Wxxx showed some rerun that Wyyyy also showed... oh well too bad so sad cry me a river... If I could put up an antenna and get Wxxx and Wyyy then whats the difference if I watch Wxxx from Mayberry v. Wyyy from Pixley???

Lets review who needs who more????

I know what certain persons here think... because they have a vested interest in the continued pronelgation of status quo.

Answer: BRODACSTERS! Thats who.

Drive around how many homes do you see with an OTA antenna???? probably could drive around for days and find 0... Its at best maybe 1-2% tops..

So how are poeple gettng these stations????

CATV, DBS, IPTV....

So if one bold CATV and DBS operator would tell the various station groups etc.. to shove it and its Must Carry or no carriage.. Who has the most too loose?????

Again, ANSWER: BROADCASTERS! If the pretty much ONLY DELIVERY of your signal goes away your ad rate will plummet! There is curretnly not enough eyeballs via OTA or IPTV to make up the loss of CATV, let alone CATV and DBS.

Ergen is to blame for part of this mess with the stupid Local in Local (LiL) crap... Yeah I know what he was doing, and while it looks/ed good on paper it just kept pandering to the same old status quo we need to toss out!

People really could care less if its KDKA giving you CBS or KCBS! They just want to tune in at 2000 on THU and get BBT. Period. Yeah, I know you and others will post I am wrong...no I am right, the will just lie that its important to see news etc. from x.

Oh... but bbut sports, slander err news...weather... There is no reason that a regional channel of this crap can't be formed from the remains of various stations news, weather departments.. and the various games for the region can be sent via fiber, or sat and then sent over the "sports channel" for the region so as not to offend the sports gods....

Really we are about 20 years past this being done.. DBS should have spelled the end of OTA.. With ABC etc. on DBS in the clear.. I honestly would have bet that OTA would have been gone by now in the US with DBS taking its place... We are clinging to oudated methods on this delivery model affilliates and fifedoms of stations...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trip in VA
(Post 57154876)

Consider this: ESPN gets something like $7/subscriber per month. Using ballpark statistics I remember from a few years ago, at 100 million subscribers, that's $700 million per month, or $8.4 billion per year they can put in to buy up sports rights. I cite sports rights because that's what people are most likely to watch live and least likely to skip commercials in, and commercials are what would make an OTA broadcaster money.

Consider ths:

This is exactly why I don't have paid video services of any form! I am not subsidizing this crap! or the 1000's other crap shows and channels....

Sports plays very little role in my life.. very little... Matter of fact there pretty much is one football game that matters that is THE GAME. Ohio State. v. that school from the state I don't give a damn about! :) And the annual shelac'ng given to them ... O-H-I-O! Go Bucks! Pretty much that and Rose Bowl. Bucks v. some loser from the B12.....

Now as for viewing it... welp.....nope... persons do not sit in front of TV and watch it, and the ads... Ads come on, flip through other channels... Its been that way forever.. or at least so long as remotes have made that possible.... Nobody just sits there like a potatoe and watches stuff... Even a show, ad comes on, flip to something else, or flip through stuff... I don't have to do that since my stuff has 0 ads for the majority of it...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trip in VA
(Post 57154876)

Now, if ESPN has $8.4 billion per year beyond ad revenue to shell out for sports rights, and your favorite OTA channel has $0 beyond ad revenue, who will be able to outbid the other for these rights? Even networks like AMC get $1/month or so; doing the same calculation, if someone is producing a new, high-quality show, will AMC with $1.2 billion/year from retrans be in the better position to buy shows, or will your favorite OTA channel with $0?

Hype much! That math is bogus! The networks produce the shows, and their are fees paid from the affiliates, before retrans crap, and ads to pay for programming so its not $0.. What that math is I don't know...

Honestly point of fact, The US5 better find a way to get viewers, not signal wise, but content wise! I watch ONE (1) EINS show from US5.. Thats BBT. After it ends in May, then I am at 0. I didn't even look at new shows this year. none.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trip in VA
(Post 57154876)

That's the problem that retrans for OTA stations is trying to fix. If everyone watched OTA and nobody paid for cable, there would be no extra pool of dollars to drive up the cost of programming. If everyone is watching on cable and satellite, by contrast, how can a small group of stations compete if they cannot receive comparable revenue streams as their numerous competitors to pay for programming? If cable/satellite percentages dropped enough, advertisers would demand that the programming appeared where viewers were (OTA) and the programming price would fall, making it affordable to OTA broadcasters without retrans dollars to spend. As long as that's not the case, though, you have to do something or OTA programming will become cheaper and lower in quality until it disappears.

The NETWORKS, the US5, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, CW need to jettison the horse collar of the affiliates... And move to a network delivered in the same manner as USA... they can do that via terrestial as well via something akin to the FreeView system.

Based on the above... whats the pooint of ATSC 3.0??????? Getting more viewers to watch the FREE OTA signal??? Cuts their own throat on the gravy train they are living on... So if 3.0 is the miracle to keep OTA alive its also going to kill it! Since I am not paying any retrans fees!

Oh.. targeted ads! BZZZTT! Nope not going to happen. No 3.0 tuner add on or a TV with one is going to get connected to my LAN and thus the internet to have it download ads or material or upload stats about my viewing to any one. Not happening.

So why is Sinclair, especially, OK I know why in a way.. they are playing all the sides on this with Dielectric etc.., but still they want 3.0 bad. .. Why???????

Other posts from groups have noted that 2160p is very unklikely to happen.. That it mostly will be 1080p with UHD.. and HDR.

If the various station owners/groups think they can continue to come back every 5 years for more and more. They are wrong... the sheeple will wise up.. Early adapotesrs like many here, will return or have never left OTA... Others will follow... disney holding ABC O&O and other networks hostage over EPSN will soon run out.. when one CATV MOO tells them to shove it! A few smaller ones are doing just that, to ALL VIDEO!

The sooner that CATV renames its self as ISP and gets over the addiction to video the better. They like broadcasters are desparte to hold onto an outdate ideal.

Ratman

11-25-2018 09:36 AM

:eek:
Wow!

BiggAW

11-25-2018 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TampBayOTA
(Post 57160974)

Drive around how many homes do you see with an OTA antenna???? probably could drive around for days and find 0... Its at best maybe 1-2% tops..

Your post is a rambling mess, but you have some good points. This point is not one of them, as roughly 20% of households use OTA. Many antennas are in the attic or indoors, so you can't see them.

Quote:

Again, ANSWER: BROADCASTERS! If the pretty much ONLY DELIVERY of your signal goes away your ad rate will plummet! There is curretnly not enough eyeballs via OTA or IPTV to make up the loss of CATV, let alone CATV and DBS.

Not if some of those people switch from DISH to cable or visa versa as a result.

Quote:

Oh... but bbut sports, slander err news...weather... There is no reason that a regional channel of this crap can't be formed from the remains of various stations news, weather departments.. and the various games for the region can be sent via fiber, or sat and then sent over the "sports channel" for the region so as not to offend the sports gods....

That's a kind of interesting idea, but you do need local affiliates if you want OTA reception for free, which is what we currently have. If OTA disappears, then you'd have to pay for the content, and the big four would become just another cable channel among hundreds. That being said, the DMA rules are completely bizarre, retransmission consent is a totally broken rip-off of a system, and clearly the whole thing is falling apart because of the networks' greed to charge ever more for less. From a pure efficiency perspective though, your idea, which I think leads to combining RSNs with regional news and weather is actually brilliant, as it puts all of the regionalized live content into a single channel that could then be distributed in 4k. However, that would not be a free OTA feed.

Quote:

Really we are about 20 years past this being done.. DBS should have spelled the end of OTA.. With ABC etc. on DBS in the clear.. I honestly would have bet that OTA would have been gone by now in the US with DBS taking its place... We are clinging to oudated methods on this delivery model affilliates and fifedoms of stations...

I think this is a technological legacy issue. We had TV way before a lot of other places, and as a result, we are stuck with this legacy broadcaster model, even though other parts of the world that got TV well into the satellite age have embraced FTA satellite in a big way.

Quote:

Hype much! That math is bogus! The networks produce the shows, and their are fees paid from the affiliates, before retrans crap, and ads to pay for programming so its not $0.. What that math is I don't know...

Trip in VA still has a perfectly valid point though. Networks without retrans fees can't compete with cable networks that are getting carriage fees. The affiliates couldn't pay the huge prices the networks are demanding without the retrans fees. Of course, at the same time, the networks are charging absolutely outrageous amounts for their content, forcing affiliates to raise retrans fees, which forces cable companies to add on extra "broadcast fees" that make no sense. It's not a market, as the affiliates can basically charge whatever they want, and cable companies can't shop around for other channels in neighboring or distant markets due to the nonsensical DMA system, which should be completely abolished. However, that would only make the local affiliates operate on razor thin margins, and they would likely all charge a high price, since the networks would still be ripping them off for the content, so this is a deep problem. I think it would work better if the affiliates were all O&O, and a pay TV provider paid CBS for access to whatever CBS channels they wanted, etc. However, that still leaves the cable companies at the mercy of the networks unless the price were regulated, which opens a whole different can of worms.

Quote:

Honestly point of fact, The US5 better find a way to get viewers, not signal wise, but content wise! I watch ONE (1) EINS show from US5.. Thats BBT. After it ends in May, then I am at 0. I didn't even look at new shows this year. none.

That's a separate issue, but it's true that their ratings are plummeting while their rates go through the roof, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. They're stuck in an old, outdated model, and can't keep producing half-baked crap when the streaming services that are competing for eyeball-hours are producing some of the best content in the history of television.

Quote:

Based on the above... whats the pooint of ATSC 3.0??????? Getting more viewers to watch the FREE OTA signal??? Cuts their own throat on the gravy train they are living on... So if 3.0 is the miracle to keep OTA alive its also going to kill it! Since I am not paying any retrans fees!

That's why I don't think it makes any sense. The business model behind 3.0 doesn't add up, unless enough customers cut the cord that the TV stations have to promote OTA in order to get more eyeballs watching ads, but I have to believe that they would rather have a small audience on pay tv paying retrans fees.

Quote:

Oh.. targeted ads! BZZZTT! Nope not going to happen. No 3.0 tuner add on or a TV with one is going to get connected to my LAN and thus the internet to have it download ads or material or upload stats about my viewing to any one. Not happening.

Yeah, I think a lot of people will do the same, not so much because of paranoia about data use, but because targeted ads are just freaking annoying, and TV ads, especially for larger events give you an interesting cross section of widely marketed products.

Quote:

If the various station owners/groups think they can continue to come back every 5 years for more and more. They are wrong... the sheeple will wise up.. Early adapotesrs like many here, will return or have never left OTA... Others will follow... disney holding ABC O&O and other networks hostage over EPSN will soon run out.. when one CATV MOO tells them to shove it! A few smaller ones are doing just that, to ALL VIDEO!

The sooner that CATV renames its self as ISP and gets over the addiction to video the better. They like broadcasters are desparte to hold onto an outdate ideal.

Part of the problem with Comcast and AT&T is that they own content. Comcast has an incentive to sell TV at a break-even, as some of the cost of that goes back to NBC, which they own. The government should never have let that deal through, as it corrupts the business model behind pay TV and broadband. However, at some point, shareholders will want to look at profitability, not just subscriber numbers. When that shift happens, and Comcast and others give up on the aggressive bundles where they are breaking even or losing money on the TV portion, and focus on high margin broadband, I suspect that several million more cord cutters will come out of the woodwork over a 2-year period of time, adding more fuel to the fire. Smaller cable companies are probably going to stop offering cable tv at some point, and tell people to go to streaming options, or something like AT&T's upcoming streaming service. Some will migrate, while others will take the opportunity to just drop pay tv altogether. With DirecTV raising rates over and over and over again, and having ridiculously high pricing, they have more customers to lose as well.

I'm just amazed at how fast this space is moving, it seems like literally every week there are reports of more cord cutting.

Bismarck440

11-25-2018 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TampBayOTA
(Post 57160974)

So whats the point of 3.0?

We are clinging to oudated methods on this delivery model affilliates and fifedoms of stations...

Supposedly a more robust signal from Low VHF to where they cut it off @ channel 36, this remains to be seen.

You dislike the Local affiliate model?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BiggAW
(Post 57158912)

That's the thing. Sports cost an absolute FORTUNE, and ESPN has been driving up the costs of sports in the process of making their channels a must-have for anyone who watches basically any sport.

I can no longer be feeding these 'Gods' (as if I ever did) & patronizing their sponsors. I went 20+ years without watching an NFL game, with a resurgence of interest of late I find Ino longer have a CBS affiliate (thanks to the protection of Canada, & my HOA's ban on outdoor antennas), that would show the local team, now my option would be to go pay, but I find my Sundays are filled with activities I cannot get done during the week.

I enjoy NBA, & MBL also, the local independent used to carry a handful of games which was sufficient, yet the cable monster no longer permits.

There is always (god forbid) local AMR/FMR.

holl_ands

11-25-2018 01:34 PM

Bear in mind that when Nielsen Pollsters ask about TV "Penetration", the "Broadcast-Only or OTA" question is for those who ONLY use an Antenna....and hence does NOT include those who might have SAT/CATV to their Primary and Antenna to the other TV's in the house.....or who use Internet Streamers [presumably Source is "CABLE"???] plus OTA Antenna....or SAT plus OTA Antenna for either higher Rez Signals or for channels missing from SAT. So there is a significant UNDER-COUNTING of homes with TV Antennas. Also note that MANY cities are significantly higher than the latest 20% statistic for "OTA" Penetration:https://www.tvb.org/Public/Research/.../CableADS.aspx [May 2018 stats are a bit outdated.]

"Broadcast-Only or OTA: Homes that receive the broadcast signal via the use of a special antenna to pick up the digital signal broadcasted by the television station. Wired cable and/or satellite boxes are not used."

BTW: Nielsen estimates that 4% of Homes have NO TV's....but again you have to be careful how you phrase the question....this presumably does NOT include those (mostly Millennials) who use their Laptop to "Watch TV"....either via their I-N Feed....or perhaps a USB Thumbdrive OTA Tuner [my FAV when on-the-road, incl. a suitcase packable Silver Sensor Antenna].